Fun fact: The Soviet Union would've won ww2 no matter what circumstance. They would've won ww2 alone...

Fun fact: The Soviet Union would've won ww2 no matter what circumstance. They would've won ww2 alone. Germany wasn't even close to defeating the Soviet Union

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIS-5_(truck)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIS-6
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komsomolets_armored_tractor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>what is lend-lease

It made the war end faster but they would've won in the end regardless. Try and do some research

if you are talking about a one on one of Germany vs the Soviet Union he russiians would be steam rolled by all the tanks. at any point of history since germany was way better equipped and prepared for war.
the nazis spent spent a lot of there momentum and power taking an holdong Europe. sp when blows did come to the Soviets they were out supplied and out supported. most of Germanys strong and skilled soldiers fought the Soviets.


the Germans had a 1-10 kill ratio but you guys always had 11 or more men . imagine if nazi Germanys full might turned on the Russian bear in its prime.

The soviet union had a way bigger industry and more tanks than nazi germany. Germany could've perhaps had a shot at defeating USSR before it got fully industrialised.

Here you can see that nazi germany even had more manpower but significantly smaller industry than USSR. And not even in the beginning they had 1:10 kill ratio. Unleas you're autistic enough to count civilian casualites
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

You're not just wrong, you're autistic.

The only reason the soviet union had any chance is an obscene amount of manpower and was given tons of equipment by the free world.

K, then search for USA reinforcements to the udssr.

Fun commie fact: Stalin caught smallpox from sucking the farts out of other mens assholes daily

Germany would've beaten Soviet Union, USA and UK 1 on 1 k thx bye

Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany with peasants, basically expendable peasants Stalin used. Nazis couldn't stand a single chance against real Soviet soldiers, they couldn't even defeat Kazakhs, Buryats, Chuvash, Armenians or Ukrainians. Most Soviet military consisted of soldiers given by Stalin weapons who were sneak attacked by Hitler, basically civilians who were given guns. Biggest number of deaths of Soviet army weren't even Russians. I mean Russian army would total obliterate Nazis if used.

you lost though, twice

>Germany had more manpower than Ussr
Are you fucking retarded?
The population of the Soviet Union was 188 million while Germany was only 80 million, but don't forget that Germany had 40 divisions in France and Benelux, 7 in Norway, 8 in Yugoslavia and Greece, and 2 in Africa
Imagine all of those divisions in the USSR, you are telling me that wouldn't make a difference? Fuck off

>Stalin throws millions of young men into a bloodbath and kills millions of his citizens and ultimately only wins because of the Russian winter.

>Hitler is forced to retreat, not because of his military, but because of the winter. So the Soviets just follow them and keep attacking them into Berlin.

>HURR DURR, THE SOVIETS DID A LOT, WOW!

Just because Stalin was a selfless dumb piece of shit that got millions of his people killed in a meatgrinder doesn't mean they had the biggest effect at all. Did they supply anyone with guns, ammunition, etc.? No. It's sad to measure wins by losses.

The Germans just said "Wow, these Soviets are like autistic kids swinging their arms wildly". They beat up on the autistic kid until their mother (the winter) came in and ultimately stomped you out.

Unless Germany developed nukes before the Soviet Union, of if Hitler never invaded the Soviet Union in the first place.

The Judeo-Bolshevik USSR won WWII by being armed and funded by the capitalist powers and throwing the common folk of Russia into a meatgrinder war of attrition. So basically, by being unprincipled tyrants sucking at the teat of international banking and finance and treating the commoners as expendable cannon fodder did the Soviet kikes defeat Germany.

>literally had germans at the gates of their capital, with the high command already planning their surrender
>100% reliant on US supporting them with literally everything

>win anything

the soviet victory at Stalingrad was dependent on American supplies

>muh winter
>muh jews
Lets face it, Hitler surprise attacked bunch of peasants, Stalin given them weapons, they were by no means rich or founded by foreigners, they had own brand of Soviet weapons.

Also don't forget about the lend-lease, the US gave the Soviet Union 17 million tons of goods, and they were:
400 000 jeeps;
12 000 armored vehicles ( 7 000 were tanks)
11 000 planes
1.75 million tons of food

Fun fact, you don't know shit about history and continue to larp like a commie faggot because you are still in highschool and live off mommy and daddy's dime.

The Soviets were fucking toast. They were on the brink of annihilation.
Zerg waves of human meat shields is not the attempts of a powerful empire, it's the dying breath of goners.
American intervention is literally what saved them.

Just to name a few

In short, here's how it went down: the Soviets get fucked by Germany, and Stalin decides to make a stand at Stalingrad. He makes this stand by throwing in more soldiers (poorly equipped) than the Germans had bullets. The winter comes and the Germans are weak, the Soviets demolish a weakened German army, despite their own losses. The German army, now depleted, retreats, and the Soviets just follow a weakened army into Berlin.

There was no strategy, it was just two heavy boxers throwing one big punch each, Hitler's punch made the Soviets stumble and suffer irreversible damage, but the Soviet's punch knocked them out cold and put the German's into a coma.

I wonder how fast the USSR would've fallen if the US started supplying Germany with oil and arms

>Try and do some research
If you followed this advice, then you would have never made this thread.

>The Soviets were fucking toast. They were on the brink of annihilation.
Then how come Soviet Union became USA's most powerful opponent for decades to come, while Nazis perished. You tried, but your facts are lies.

that's bullshit. If Hitler didn't have two fronts to defend/attack (as well as North Africa), he could have easily conquered or at least staved off the SU, given that they didn't receive billions of vital resources and materiel from the US

Anyway, unless you're a genocidal tankie/fascist, you really shouldn't care either way seeing as how both sides were morally and economically horrible expansionist dictatorships.

If the British had not been involved the Germans would have won the war in two years. The Soviets had strategic depth, but they were fighting an enemy who had split his power (most importantly his air power) on multiple fronts. With that issue removed it wouldn't have been a contest. The Luftwaffe was broken over Britain, not Stalingrad.

how can win one country against the rest of the world?

Oh really? Interesting, it's almost like Hitler betrayed Stalin.

Jesus commies are fucking stupid. Read some books and grow up retard.

>use logic
>argue with a commie
pick one.
Just call him a cuck user. Commies are only good for target practice and laughing at.

The UK no fucking shit but it's too hard to speculate about the Soviets and America desu

>ITT: muh Lend Lease!

Around 7% of Soviet war production, most of it arriving in 1943 and 1944. British got three times as much.
May I remind you that Soviets won in Moscow before a scrap of LL arrived, and also won at Stalingrad by 1943.
Rubbish theory by historically illiterate people.

Boris Vadimovich Sokolov

On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR’s emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany’s might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.

Nikita Khrushchev
I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were “discussing freely” among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany’s pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don’t think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.

>sneak attack
>can't win against mongol civilians with weapons
>he thinks Nazis had a chance
They tried the most evil and cowardly way possible to defeat Soviets and still couldn't do it.

>100% reliant on US supporting them with literally everything
*revisionism intensifies*

Faggot, you are telling me the lend-lease didn't make any difference?
You are a brainwashed retard for sure

It made a difference but it was nowhere near as influential as Americans and anti-communist historians like to think.

Oh and LL was paid (in gold).
About MUH KD RATIO, in combat (read again: in combat, not civilians and POWs), ratio was 1.3/1 in Axis favour.
So for every 3 Axis soldiers, 4 Soviets died.
Furthermore, in terms of available manpower (Ukraine and Belarus were lost early on, parts of Russia too) Axis had advantage. Germany had allies.

Stalingrad wasn't the turning point, that was the Kursk battle


Also: G.K. Zhukov

Today [1963] some say the Allies didn’t really help us… But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.

What about those extra 50+ dividions that were occupying the other countries ?

Statements are statements and numbers are numbers.
LL was around 7% of Soviet war production.
Now if you think Soviets weren't able to build locomotives and trucks you are literally retarded. Funny thing is their automotive industry was developed by Americans in 20's.

It's still a shit-tier ant colony.

Moscow was the turning point. Stalingrad was when German defeat became probable. Kursk was when it became inevitable. Bagration was actually finishing them off, Soviets were only stopped because of logistics, not German resistance.

>I know things better than Soviet High command

Soviet army was made out of volunteers and even 1 million women, those defeated Hitler. Nazi soldiers with army training lost to those. Can you imagine how incredibly weaker the Nazis were compare to real Soviet army? 1 Soviet soldier could easily defeat 100 krauts.

First two people you quoted weren't "Soviet high command".
Zhukov was but that's probably flattery. As I said, numbers are numbers. LL was 7% of Soviet war production and majority of it reached them in 1943 and 1944 once they already had advantage.
It probably made their victory quicker, but saying they would be beaten without it is illogical rubbish.

Is that why almost twice as many Soviets died than Germans ?

>Germany would've beaten Soviet Union, USA and UK 1 on 1 k thx bye
You were not alone. Italy, Hungary, Romania, Latvia and many others

The Soviets were well on their way to winning by the time Kursk happened.

Then why would Stalin have said so (when talking to Nikita)

fun fact: I just farted.
Also, you're retarded and a failed bait. That's it.

All right anons, here's the scoop.
Germany lost because of a combination of logistical and manpower issues.
German logistics failed before the push on Moscow and because of this, they were unable to maintain tactical flexibility and aggression. They slowed down and became predictable due to ammo and fuel shortages, not "muh Russian superiority." Allow me to explain.

Let's say it takes 100 units of "logistics manpower" to supply a unit just outside Germany. Throw in Russia's dogshit dirt roads, not to mention partisans, and suddenly your logistical manpower needs aren't just x10, they're more like x20, and Germany simply could not put that kind of manpower into logistics because it had already conscripted too much of its manpower into its regular army. Long story short, German planning didn't accurately forcast logistics requirements and they became combat ineffective in the Russian interior.

Note: this same problem ALSO applied to the Soviets. This is why Patton claimed "give me 5 days against the commies and Russian logistics will collapse". The land between Germany and Russia was barren and devestated and the Russians had the same dirt road problems.

Fact: Russians in Germany were on their last legs and had terrible supply problems that the Americans DID NOT HAVE. We could have crushed them then and there if we so chose.

Please stop being illiterate and read Reason why so many Soviets died is because Soviet death toll counts civilians and POWs who were murdered.
Should killing civilians and POWs count as an evidence of martial superiority?
I swear no army in human history is as overrated and subject of idiotic myths as Wehrmacht.
People say victors write history but in this case it was literally losers writing it and it stuck in popular psyche. German generals shitting out fairy-tales which found fertile ground in post-war ideological struggle.
Reality is something else.

Hitler spanked his best men pushing East trying to take non stratigic cities, he was so dumb.

They fought for their towns Germans attacked, so it was worth it. Hitler fucked up big time, both betraying and attacking civilians, then eventually producing Germany of today. It's funny how Nazis take pride in "almost" defeating volunteers who were made out of 60% Mongolian races, 10% women and the rest Russians/Ukrainians. Germany basically lost all patriots in a defeat against volunteers of village towns.

>manpower issues.
Like how Russians outnumbered them?

Keep in mind that Khrushchev despite his popular image wasn't some jovial peasant. Man was Stalin's henchman and a cold-blooded killer.
Don't mistake this as me trying to whitewash Stalin's actions, but those people who succeeded him lied a lot and put all blame on him. They had every reason to do so. Thus their statements should be considered only when they fall in line with actual hard data, and LL being 7% of Soviet war production is hard historical data.
>b-but Soviets lied
Soviets lied but every government that functions needs to have accurate records, political system doesn't change that. Soviet records were opened after the fall of USSR and many of Cold War claims and myths were buried, even by historians who made them. See for example Robert Conquest and how he revised his numbers once he got access to Soviet archives.

Not exactly. Ironically, the Germans probably would have wiped out the Russians if they had less men on the front, and more of those same men delivering fuel and ammo.
When you look at the small unit engagements in the opening parts of the campaign, the Russians were getting absolutely rolled. It wasn't even close.
It wasn't until the German advance had stalled (which it never should have, had the German leadership actually LISTENED to the complaints of the logistical staff before the campaign) that Russia was able to get its footing.

IN COMBAT roughly 8 - 10 million Soviets were killed. And an estimated 24 million (including civilians) were killed.
Do you even do any research ?

this, between the bombings and the war on two fronts they were just out numbered. 1 on 1 Germany may have bested the Russians just due to technological superiority. germany was not a pushover in WW2 by any means commiecucks.

No, not really. Without Lend Lease the war would become a lot more uncertain. Germany never really had the capacity to fully project their power into the Soviet Union and enforce their will on it, with inefficient railways, large amount of horse-drawn infantry, active partisans, and smaller amounts of trucks in the mobile divisions that suffered from a lack of spare parts due to the thousands of different models used, mass breakdowns in the poor road conditions of Russia, and shortages of fuel and rubber. It all combined to create a poor transport system that meant Germany had trouble supplying what they had, let alone dozens more divisions if other fronts hypothetically stopped existing. But the same went for the Soviet Union too, who employed 3.5 million horses compared to Germany's 2.75, had to re-lay destroyed railroad track as they moved forward, and had a similarly small domestic production of trucks (although a greater abundance of rubber and fuel). The result would be that Germany wouldn't be able to enforce their will of unconditional surrender on the USSR as it was historically, while the USSR wouldn't be able to fully push out German forces out of their territory and move on to Berlin without Western logistical supplies. What results could either be a years long stalemate, a white peace, or a Brest-Litovsk type treaty favoring Germany.

Here's the fact of the matter: if the German high command had accurately predicted their logistical requirements, they never would have lost their momentum and the Russians would have been driven from Moscow, which had a huge majority of their own industrial capability, not to mention communication structure, roads, etc.

Ok but is it true that SU didn't have the ability to produce the goods given by LL ?
Like you can make more rifles for little amount of ressources if you alerady have a rifle factory but for railroads ,boots or jeeps you need to build the infrastructures first.
Is this "cost" inclued in those 7% ?

Depends on how you define manpower. France also had a big army, yet many of those were fucking peasants and reservists who didn't fight that hard.

Oh for sure. I'm sure all it would have taken was a few million more in the meat grinder.

Coldwar propoganda from Muricans.

The day D-Day happened Operation Bagration sealed the end of the war.

The Russians had 500 divisions when it finished.

It was the most battle tested fearsome army in history.

Enigma, Stalingrad and the failure to capture Moscow and the oilfields sealed the outcome of the war.

>Germans would have won if they had sunny day, sneak attacked Moscow directly, had more ammo, fuel and all stars aligned to shine on Germans
While in the meanwhile Soviet volunteers had barely any organization, experience and won.
>but muh higher casualties, Nazis almost made it

But that's exactly what I said, are you retarded?
That would make some sense if Soviets didn't cover the same ground on when they rolled back Germans. Same ground was even more devastated then when Soviets retreated. Germans literally burned everything that could be burned.
>Patton
...was a glorified corps-level general. ''Patton claimed'' is no fucking argument and you people need to understand that.
>1 on 1
But Germans didn't invade 1 on 1, they had help from Hungarians, Romanians, Finns, Slovaks and later Italians.
In terms of manpower potential, initial numbers, industrial and resource potential, it was Axis who had the advantage.
Germans literally had entire Europe at their disposal. The fact they were outproduced by the Soviets so much just tells you how efficient Nazism was. Pro-tip: it wasn't. It was atrocious system.

>kekistan

You can't win wars when your troops are starving and your people aren't strong enough to lift a weapon much less fire one.

Literally the only reason nazis lost was the winter.
Hell even to this day Russia is pretty weak in terms of troops,the only problem is that its a giant fucking landscape.

Just read a little bit of history and war strategy books. It's not hard.

Soviets built and expanded war industry during the war so yes, they were perfectly able to build trucks and locomotives. It's quite easier making a truck compared to making a tank and airplane, and they shat out hundreds of thousands of those. Of course, something else would suffer, but truth is Soviet troops never really faced material issues during the war.
Their main problems were rebuilding the cadre they lost during purges and initial setbacks, basically learning how to fight again.
And they learned it quite well. Soviet army by the end of war was the most powerful force world had ever seen up until then.
Strategic operations they undertook like Bagration or invasion of Manchuria make American and British operations look like a joke.

>USA flag
USA was never on side of Germans, not in first world war, not in second world war. You should know what USA represents, nothing Nazis represented and no it's not Communist fault you are degenerate.

EVEN KIKEPEDIA, WHICH IS USUALLY ANTI NAZI IN GENERAL, DISAGREES WITH YOU YOU FUCKING MONGREL.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

>Joseph Stalin, during the Tehran Conference in 1943, acknowledged publicly the importance of American efforts during a dinner at the conference: "Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war."

How close were they to Moscow again? The only thing that stopped germany from blitzkrieging to the capital and ending the soviet union was the fact the soviets used different sized rail system which forced the germans to take russian trains or build new track.

Having an entire western front open was a pretty big advantage for the USSR.

i know it wasnt a good system (implying communism is any better) nor did i mention they would get aid from their allies. maybe just the ones who flew the nazi flag and had been conquered by the turning point would make a fair battle. unfortunately we will never know for sure.

More info:

>Literally the only reason nazis lost was the winter.
Yes because Russians are immune to cold weather.
>Just read a little bit of history and war strategy books. It's not hard.
You didn't read 1 (one) book about history.

Communism is absolute shit, I never claimed that it was good.
>X said...!
And again: Lend-Lease was 7% of Soviet war production and most of it reached Soviets in 1943 and 1944.

what does my political view have to do with me making fun of your gay ass cult?

Hell, just look at fucking Vietnam. When your enemy is being given full logistical support from abroad and your soldiers are willing to fight to the death, even third rate powers can bring a first rate to its knees.
My original point stands uncontested. When German logistics held, the Germans rolled. It was only after logistics failed and tactical momentum stalled that the Russians had a chance to take the initiative.

>taking loans like Weimar republic did from USA
Russia was bankrupt by tsars, attacked by way more countries than Germany, then had first world war and second world war. Oh they got some loans from USA. Like if loans are helping and not debting.

I would like to point out to everyone that extremely important military details that would have made the initial and continued German advance easier were withheld from the OKW and Hitler by the Abwehr because it was filled to the brim with traitors. Seriously, you think Hitler was a terrible military commander because of his decisions. In the light of what he expected to happen and what actually happened this would be true. However, Hitler's plans would have been used to great effect had the information he was given been reliable. The sheer depth of the Abwehr and foreign offices' betrayal is by far one of the most the defining reasons for why the Eastern Front went the way it did.

>implying that the Soviets could've beaten Germany, Italy, Japan, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Thailand, Slovakia, Croatia, Finland, and the rest of the Axis on their own
shit-tier b8 kill yourself m8

>LL was around 7% of Soviet war production.

Topkek, cancer go die in a fire.

>Most belligerent powers cut back severely on production of non-essentials, concentrating on producing weapons. This inevitably produced shortages of related products needed by the military or as part of the military-industrial complex. For example, the USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production. Just 446 locomotives were produced during the war, with only 92 of those being built between 1942 and 1945. In total, 92.7% of the wartime production of railroad equipment by the Soviet Union was supplied under Lend-Lease, including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars which augmented the existing prewar stocks of at least 20,000 locomotives and half a million railcars.

The USSR did not have the capabilities to create the transportation needed AND all their military stuff. They had to chose which one to focus on and get the rest from the US/Britain.

>logistical support of the Soviet military was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed, by 1945, nearly a third of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built.

>18,200 aircraft, which amounted to about 13% of Soviet wartime aircraft production.
>7,000 Lend-Lease tanks were deployed by the Red Army, or 8% of war-time production.
>1.75 million tons of food. (as usual, imperative for the communsists, kek)
>Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic production. (they were short an ammo even with that help, without getting ammo from the US, they would have been fucked)

>FPBP

It made it end faster.

Facts are

1. Germany COULD NOT sustain the war at all.

2. When Guderian was close to Moscow stalin had additional troops waiting (like 20+ or was it even more divisions) to get at them.

Exactly, so who the fuck cares about the civilian and POW numbers.
The soviets were getting their asses handed to them, and the idea that "1 Soviet soldier could easily defeat 100 krauts" is total bullshit.

>B-but Russian front was too wide! How could the Germans engage all of it?
Easy. No fuel/ammo shortage means that Germans just clear each pocket in swinging motions piecemeal. Without logistical failure, this would have happened.

It's sad that people actually shame all socialists for the actions of a few.

You can see that all over this board.

People on this board want all socialists to die, even intelligent and innocent socialists like Jeremy Corbyn and Martin Schulz.

This board is full of racist fuckers ridiculing genuine causes and kissing the ass of the establishment.

That's why there are anti-socialist threads every day and racist threads ridiculing and bashing minorities like me for my different political opinions.

Why would USA and Britain help Soviets if they literally declared war on them during civil war? Now you gone full retard. Civil war lasted from 1917 to 1922 and USA was attacking Soviets you dumbfuck. That's around the same year they started fucking with Weimar Republic, where such things gave birth to Stalin-Hitler pact against Anglos.

1- 10?

USSR military casualties were 8.6m
That includes nearly 3m who died as POWS

German and Axis Allies(Hungary/Finland/Romania) and collaborators casualties: 5.178m (inc 800k died as POWs)

So thats a K/D ratio of 1.66 : 1

If you exclude Pows thats 1.27 :!


Hmm really makes you think about all that cold war propaganda....

>doesn't read shit
>muh 7%

You literally have no idea how an army functions. What should they have done without food and ammo? Yet, not even being able to get this non existent food and ammo to the frontlines?

> Like if loans are helping
You are unironically clinicly retarded. Do you even remotely understand what you read?

Except Vietnam never brought USA ''to it's knees''. While USA lost it was a political loss. During the war political barriers prevented decisive action.
Your analogy can't apply to Soviet-German conflict which ended in total annihilation of one opponent.
>SOVIETS COULDNT MAKE TRUCKS AND LOCOMOTIVES

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIS-5_(truck)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIS-6
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komsomolets_armored_tractor

Just a few examples.
And yes, ALL THAT you named was 7% of Soviet war production.
For a sense of scale, just look at this:
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II

I understand you don't understand a thing. You are at least 20 times dumber than the dumbest Hitler's decision.

>Why would USA and Britain help Soviets if they literally declared war on them during civil war?
Are you literally unironically denying that the Lend Lease agreement existed?

>Civil war lasted from 1917 to 1922 and USA was attacking Soviets you dumbfuck.
We are currently talking about 1941-1945. Lay of the drugs.

Do you even recognize what thread you are in?

>Why would USA and Britain help Soviets
Becuase we were both fighting the Nazi

Keep up lol

Are you aware of how politics works? An almost 20 year gap which involves history changing events like the rise of Hitler can force a change in foreign policy. The USA already recognized the USSR as official in the 1930's and began trade with it. 20 years is a long time politics. Political pragmatism demands adapting to the geopolitical situation.